* Kris Verbeeck wrote:
> Quote from RFC 2616:
> implied *LWS
> The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except
> where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included
> between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and
> between adjacent words and separators, without changing the
> interpretation of a field.
Yes, but 4.2 states:
HTTP header fields, [...] follow the same generic format as
that given in Section 3.1 of RFC 822 [9]. Each header field consists
of a name followed by a colon (":") and the field value. [...]
message-header = field-name ":" [ field-value ]
field-name = token
[...]
So, there's just one token and no place for an implied LWS. [ situation
differs from "between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string)" ]
> So, as PR 16520 states:
>
> Authorization : scheme scheme param=value
>
> is a valid header and should be treated as
>
> Authorization: scheme scheme param=value
So these are not the same headers, by my reading of the RFC. In fact the
former is a Bad Request, since a token cannot contain WS.
nd
--
die (eval q-qq[Just Another Perl Hacker
]
;-)
# André Malo, <http://www.perlig.de/> #
